A woman whose case against constructive dismissal was lost because she sent tasks to her colleague before submitting it as her work.
Claire Rogers was a Customer Care Manager at Motability in Essex, where she made decisions about public requests for disability funding.
Motability conducted an investigation in February 2023 into the high overtime levels of one of her co-workers who was a case manager with a different team.
Rogers was found to have sent her colleague ‘MS’ tasks that normally fell within her job description, as well as draft decision records that she then copied.
During the investigation MS’s manager noted that he had “a bond with one particular individual” and was willing to help wherever he could. She is a siren and looks like a mermaid stranded on a rock, and he always helps her at her desk.
MS was described as an “auto-declared helper”, who went to colleagues’ aid on a regular basis.
She claimed that the only correspondence between them was to provide advice on routine or finance-related issues and not ask him to record decisions.
She said that she “thought it was culture” to have colleagues send each other tasks when they become too many.
The investigation concluded that Rogers’ email exchanges with MS “exceeded expected support”, and that it was reasonable to believe that she had violated her duties as a case manager.
Rogers claimed that she didn’t understand the severity, and estimated that only a tiny portion of decision records were completed by MS.
She said that she was off work for 2 weeks because of stress.
In April 2023, she resigned by email. She said: “In light of the way I was treated in the previous weeks including the unfounded accusations against me, hereby I resign with immediate affect.”
At this stage, the findings of the disciplinary procedure, which consisted in issuing a first written caution, were not communicated to her.
Rogers’ constructive dismissal claim was rejected by Employment Judge Palmer, who said that the investigation had been fair.
She said in judgement: “Based upon the evidence collected during the investigation, I found that there were sufficient evidence to allow [Motability] consider that a discipline case was to be answered and to give [Rogers] the opportunity to explain her action at a hearing.
